What do we owe a place? How the debate about left-behind places is challenging how we distribute public funding and the problems it should address.

The article examines the ongoing debate surrounding the allocation of public funding to regions that have experienced economic decline or stagnation. Some economists argue against providing more funding to these areas, claiming that it would not generate significant economic returns compared to investing in more prosperous regions. This debate has led to narratives suggesting that elites in the capital are unfairly depriving these regions of their fair share of funding, which has contributed to the rise of populist and Eurosceptic parties. The article highlights the importance of transparency in the distribution of public funding and presents six benchmarks for determining a fair allocation, including autonomy, efficiency, continuity, equality of input, equality of output, and anti-disparity. The text also discusses the need to address the economic decline in these regions to prevent further decline and reduce the appeal of populist parties, but suggests that efforts should focus on adjusting public services and infrastructure to accommodate smaller populations rather than trying to reverse population decline. The article emphasizes the necessity of reliable data on public expenditure and calls for a more informed and nuanced debate on the distribution of funding. [Extracted from the article]